儿科重症监护室危重儿童床边家人陪伴的相关结果:一项范围综述

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nicole Fakhory, Kaleigh Lang, Molly Ryan, Laurie A Lee, Jamie A Seabrook, Martha Walls, Corey Slumkoski, Jennifer R Foster
{"title":"儿科重症监护室危重儿童床边家人陪伴的相关结果:一项范围综述","authors":"Nicole Fakhory, Kaleigh Lang, Molly Ryan, Laurie A Lee, Jamie A Seabrook, Martha Walls, Corey Slumkoski, Jennifer R Foster","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to identify the outcomes of family presence in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) that have been studied and reported in the literature.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>PICU admission can be traumatic for children and their families. While family presence at the patient bedside is recommended to support family participation and engagement in care and is supported in recent family-centered care guidelines, it is not consistently optimized. To guide family presence research, a scoping review is needed to identify outcomes associated with family presence.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 1960 to 2022 in any language that reported outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU for patients, their family members, and PICU health care professionals (HCPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following JBI methodology for scoping reviews, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, as well as 16 sources of gray literature for studies that addressed outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU as they relate to the key players. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, followed by full texts of selected records according to the inclusion criteria. A priori, we identified categories of outcomes (biologic, psychologic, social, caring behavior) and key groups (HCPs, patients, families) to which the outcomes may apply. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the study team. Data were presented in tabular format to address findings related to the review objectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 12,411 records through database searches, backward reference chaining, and gray literature searching. We removed 3012 duplicates, excluded 9244 records at the title and abstract review, and excluded 92 reports after full-text review. We extracted data from 62 reports of which 12 were mixed methods, 25 were quantitative, and 25 were qualitative spanning from 1982 to 2022.Of 46 unique outcomes, 39 reports addressed 28 outcomes for family members (psychologic n=13, social n=8, biologic n=5, caring behavior n=2; most common was stress, n=11 reports). Twenty reports addressed 16 outcomes for patients (psychologic n=7, social n=0, biologic n=6, caring behavior n=2, and other outcomes n=1; most common was out-of-bed mobilization, n=4 reports). Eleven reports addressed 9 outcomes for HCPs (psychologic n=3, social n=2, biologic n=0, caring behavior n=3, and other outcomes n=1; most common was procedural performance, n=3). The most frequently studied biologic outcome was sleep (n=7 reports; family members n=6, patients n=1), psychologic outcome was stress (n=13 reports; family members n=11, HCPs n= 2), social outcomes were role changes (n=4 reports; family members n=3, HCPs n=1) and financial challenges (n=4 reports for family members), and caring behavior outcome was out-of-bed mobility (n=4 reports for patients).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A relatively large, heterogenous body of literature addresses biologic, psychologic, social, and caring behavior outcomes for family members, patients, and HCPs. The review highlights the heterogeneity of available data and identifies a need for a concerted analysis. Important gaps remain, including social and longer-term mental health outcomes for patients, outcomes for siblings, and infection transmission for all key groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes associated with family presence at the bedside of critically ill children in the pediatric intensive care unit: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Fakhory, Kaleigh Lang, Molly Ryan, Laurie A Lee, Jamie A Seabrook, Martha Walls, Corey Slumkoski, Jennifer R Foster\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBIES-23-00554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to identify the outcomes of family presence in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) that have been studied and reported in the literature.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>PICU admission can be traumatic for children and their families. While family presence at the patient bedside is recommended to support family participation and engagement in care and is supported in recent family-centered care guidelines, it is not consistently optimized. To guide family presence research, a scoping review is needed to identify outcomes associated with family presence.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 1960 to 2022 in any language that reported outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU for patients, their family members, and PICU health care professionals (HCPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following JBI methodology for scoping reviews, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, as well as 16 sources of gray literature for studies that addressed outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU as they relate to the key players. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, followed by full texts of selected records according to the inclusion criteria. A priori, we identified categories of outcomes (biologic, psychologic, social, caring behavior) and key groups (HCPs, patients, families) to which the outcomes may apply. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the study team. Data were presented in tabular format to address findings related to the review objectives.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 12,411 records through database searches, backward reference chaining, and gray literature searching. We removed 3012 duplicates, excluded 9244 records at the title and abstract review, and excluded 92 reports after full-text review. We extracted data from 62 reports of which 12 were mixed methods, 25 were quantitative, and 25 were qualitative spanning from 1982 to 2022.Of 46 unique outcomes, 39 reports addressed 28 outcomes for family members (psychologic n=13, social n=8, biologic n=5, caring behavior n=2; most common was stress, n=11 reports). Twenty reports addressed 16 outcomes for patients (psychologic n=7, social n=0, biologic n=6, caring behavior n=2, and other outcomes n=1; most common was out-of-bed mobilization, n=4 reports). Eleven reports addressed 9 outcomes for HCPs (psychologic n=3, social n=2, biologic n=0, caring behavior n=3, and other outcomes n=1; most common was procedural performance, n=3). The most frequently studied biologic outcome was sleep (n=7 reports; family members n=6, patients n=1), psychologic outcome was stress (n=13 reports; family members n=11, HCPs n= 2), social outcomes were role changes (n=4 reports; family members n=3, HCPs n=1) and financial challenges (n=4 reports for family members), and caring behavior outcome was out-of-bed mobility (n=4 reports for patients).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A relatively large, heterogenous body of literature addresses biologic, psychologic, social, and caring behavior outcomes for family members, patients, and HCPs. The review highlights the heterogeneity of available data and identifies a need for a concerted analysis. Important gaps remain, including social and longer-term mental health outcomes for patients, outcomes for siblings, and infection transmission for all key groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00554\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本综述的目的是确定已在文献中研究和报道的儿科重症监护病房(picu)家庭存在的结果。重症监护病房入住对儿童及其家庭来说可能是创伤性的。虽然建议患者床边的家属在场以支持家庭参与和参与护理,并在最近的以家庭为中心的护理指南中得到支持,但它并没有始终得到优化。为了指导家庭就诊研究,需要进行范围审查,以确定与家庭就诊相关的结果。纳入标准:本综述纳入了从1960年到2022年以任何语言发表的定量、定性和混合方法的研究,这些研究报告了患者、其家庭成员和PICU卫生保健专业人员(HCPs)在PICU床边的家庭存在的结果。方法:采用JBI方法进行范围评价,我们检索了MEDLINE (Ovid)、PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、Embase以及16个灰色文献来源,以研究PICU中与关键参与者相关的床边家庭存在的结果。两位独立审稿人筛选标题和摘要,然后根据纳入标准筛选选定记录的全文。先验地,我们确定了结果的类别(生物、心理、社会、关怀行为)和结果可能适用的关键群体(医护人员、患者、家庭)。数据由2名独立审稿人使用研究小组开发的数据提取工具提取。数据以表格形式呈现,以说明与审查目标有关的调查结果。结果:通过数据库检索、反向参考链接和灰色文献检索,共鉴定出12411条记录。我们删除了3012个重复,在标题和摘要评审时排除了9244条记录,在全文评审后排除了92篇报告。我们从62份报告中提取了数据,其中12份是混合方法,25份是定量方法,25份是定性方法,时间跨度为1982年至2022年。在46个独特的结局中,39个报告涉及家庭成员的28个结局(心理n=13,社会n=8,生物n=5,关怀行为n=2;最常见的是压力(n=11份报告)。20份报告涉及患者的16个结局(心理n=7,社会n=0,生物学n=6,关怀行为n=2,其他结局n=1;最常见的是床外活动(n=4例报告)。11份报告涉及HCPs的9个结局(心理n=3,社会n=2,生物学n=0,关怀行为n=3,其他结局n=1;最常见的是程序性能,n=3)。最常被研究的生物学结果是睡眠(n=7份报告;家属n=6,患者n=1),心理结局为应激(n=13份报告;家庭成员n=11, HCPs n= 2),社会结果为角色变化(n=4份报告;家庭成员n=3, HCPs n=1)和财务挑战(家庭成员n=4),护理行为结果为床下活动能力(患者n=4)。结论:关于家庭成员、患者和医护人员的生物学、心理、社会和关怀行为结果的文献相对较多,且各不相同。该审查强调了现有数据的异质性,并确定需要进行协调一致的分析。重要的差距仍然存在,包括患者的社会和长期心理健康结果、兄弟姐妹的结果以及所有关键群体的感染传播。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes associated with family presence at the bedside of critically ill children in the pediatric intensive care unit: a scoping review.

Objective: The objective of this review is to identify the outcomes of family presence in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) that have been studied and reported in the literature.

Introduction: PICU admission can be traumatic for children and their families. While family presence at the patient bedside is recommended to support family participation and engagement in care and is supported in recent family-centered care guidelines, it is not consistently optimized. To guide family presence research, a scoping review is needed to identify outcomes associated with family presence.

Inclusion criteria: This review included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 1960 to 2022 in any language that reported outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU for patients, their family members, and PICU health care professionals (HCPs).

Methods: Following JBI methodology for scoping reviews, we searched MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, as well as 16 sources of gray literature for studies that addressed outcomes of family presence at the bedside in the PICU as they relate to the key players. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, followed by full texts of selected records according to the inclusion criteria. A priori, we identified categories of outcomes (biologic, psychologic, social, caring behavior) and key groups (HCPs, patients, families) to which the outcomes may apply. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the study team. Data were presented in tabular format to address findings related to the review objectives.

Results: We identified 12,411 records through database searches, backward reference chaining, and gray literature searching. We removed 3012 duplicates, excluded 9244 records at the title and abstract review, and excluded 92 reports after full-text review. We extracted data from 62 reports of which 12 were mixed methods, 25 were quantitative, and 25 were qualitative spanning from 1982 to 2022.Of 46 unique outcomes, 39 reports addressed 28 outcomes for family members (psychologic n=13, social n=8, biologic n=5, caring behavior n=2; most common was stress, n=11 reports). Twenty reports addressed 16 outcomes for patients (psychologic n=7, social n=0, biologic n=6, caring behavior n=2, and other outcomes n=1; most common was out-of-bed mobilization, n=4 reports). Eleven reports addressed 9 outcomes for HCPs (psychologic n=3, social n=2, biologic n=0, caring behavior n=3, and other outcomes n=1; most common was procedural performance, n=3). The most frequently studied biologic outcome was sleep (n=7 reports; family members n=6, patients n=1), psychologic outcome was stress (n=13 reports; family members n=11, HCPs n= 2), social outcomes were role changes (n=4 reports; family members n=3, HCPs n=1) and financial challenges (n=4 reports for family members), and caring behavior outcome was out-of-bed mobility (n=4 reports for patients).

Conclusions: A relatively large, heterogenous body of literature addresses biologic, psychologic, social, and caring behavior outcomes for family members, patients, and HCPs. The review highlights the heterogeneity of available data and identifies a need for a concerted analysis. Important gaps remain, including social and longer-term mental health outcomes for patients, outcomes for siblings, and infection transmission for all key groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信